RESEARCH ARTICLE
Whole Genome Sequence Analysis Suggests Intratumoral Heterogeneity in Dissemination of Breast Cancer to Lymph Nodes Kevin Blighe1", Laura Kenny2", Naina Patel2, David S. Guttery1, Karen Page1, Julian H. Gronau2, Cyrus Golshani2, Justin Stebbing2, R.Charles Coombes2, Jacqueline A. Shaw1* 1. Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine, Robert Kilpatrick Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, LE2 7LX, United Kingdom, 2. Division of Cancer, Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, W12 0NN, United Kingdom *[email protected] " These authors are joint first authors on this work. OPEN ACCESS Citation: Blighe K, Kenny L, Patel N, Guttery DS, Page K, et al. (2014) Whole Genome Sequence Analysis Suggests Intratumoral Heterogeneity in Dissemination of Breast Cancer to Lymph Nodes. PLoS ONE 9(12): e115346. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0115346 Editor: Jian-Xin Gao, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China Received: July 14, 2014 Accepted: November 22, 2014 Published: December 29, 2014 Copyright: ß 2014 Blighe et al. This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All sequence data is available at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) under accession number PRJEB7607 (ERP008528). Funding: This study was supported by a grant from Complete Genomics, Incorporated. The research undertaken was additionally supported by the Imperial EXperimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC), Imperial Cancer Research UK (CRUK) Centre, and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London. KP and DSG are funded by a programme grant award from CRUK to JS and RCC. KB was funded by CRUK while in Leicester. LK is funded by an NIHR Clinician Scientist grant
Abstract Background: Intratumoral heterogeneity may help drive resistance to targeted therapies in cancer. In breast cancer, the presence of nodal metastases is a key indicator of poorer overall survival. The aim of this study was to identify somatic genetic alterations in early dissemination of breast cancer by whole genome next generation sequencing (NGS) of a primary breast tumor, a matched locally-involved axillary lymph node and healthy normal DNA from blood. Methods: Whole genome NGS was performed on 12 mg (range 11.1–13.3 mg) of DNA isolated from fresh-frozen primary breast tumor, axillary lymph node and peripheral blood following the DNA nanoball sequencing protocol. Single nucleotide variants, insertions, deletions, and substitutions were identified through a bioinformatic pipeline and compared to CIN25, a key set of genes associated with tumor metastasis. Results: Whole genome sequencing revealed overlapping variants between the tumor and node, but also variants that were unique to each. Novel mutations unique to the node included those found in two CIN25 targets, TGIF2 and CCNB2, which are related to transcription cyclin activity and chromosomal stability, respectively, and a unique frameshift in PDS5B, which is required for accurate sister chromatid segregation during cell division. We also identified dominant clonal variants that progressed from tumor to node, including SNVs in TP53 and ARAP3, which mediates rearrangements to the cytoskeleton and cell shape, and an insertion in
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
1 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
(09/009). Tissue samples were provided by the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Tissue Bank. Other investigators may have received samples from these same tissues. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Competing Interests: The authors undertook the study in collaboration with Complete Genomics, Incorporated, who carried out and funded the sequencing. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
TOP2A, the expression of which is significantly associated with tumor proliferation and can segregate breast cancers by outcome. Conclusion: This case study provides preliminary evidence that primary tumor and early nodal metastasis have largely overlapping somatic genetic alterations. There were very few mutations unique to the involved node. However, significant conclusions regarding early dissemination needs analysis of a larger number of patient samples.
Introduction The presence of tumor spread to local lymph nodes is one of the most important prognostic factors affecting patient survival in breast cancer [1–4]. Many treatment strategies are largely based on protein expression measurements of steroid hormone receptors and Her2, which broadly segregates tumors into 5 molecular subtypes [5]. However, genetic profiling of primary tumors suggests that the landscape is much more complex than this, with the identification of at least 10 distinct subtypes by the METABRIC consortium [6], which has implications for both prognosis and treatment [5, 7]. In the era of targeted therapeutics, intratumoral heterogeneity is being increasingly recognized as an important barrier to the success of cancer treatments. Multiregion sequencing of samples taken from the same renal cell carcinoma and distant metastases revealed that more than 60% of all somatic mutations were not detectable across every tumor biopsy that was taken, suggesting that we have previously underestimated the clinical impact of genetic complexity in individuals as a result of heterogeneity [8]. Indeed, the intratumoral heterogeneity seen in renal carcinoma led to phenotypic diversity in the form of activating mutations in MTOR, which may predict for intrinsic resistance to drugs targeting the PI3K-MTOR pathway. On the other hand, intertumoral heterogeneity has been equally well described previously for primary breast cancer [9], and even in the phenotypically diverse but rare metaplastic breast cancer subtype [10]. The origin of tumor heterogeneity is frequently debated and it is believed that it could arise as a consequence of clonal evolution [11, 12]. Meanwhile, chromosomal instability (CIN) is a hallmark of human cancer that is characterized by elevated rates of chromosome miss-segregation [13, 14] and is thought to be due to specific gene alterations that arise before malignant transformation occurs. Chromosomal instability can give rise to a heterogeneously aneuploid tumor that could enable selective adaptation and evolution; moreover, CIN is a process that is required for metastasis and resistance to therapy to occur [15, 16]. Identifying genetic drivers of CIN is thus central to further understanding this type of genomic instability. and —in this way— understanding the origin of tumor heterogeneity.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
2 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
In this study, we sought to define genetic variability early in the metastatic process through the comparison of a primary breast tumor with paired locallyinvolved axillary lymph node in DNA isolated from the same patient by whole genome sequencing.
Materials and Methods Tissue samples were provided by the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Tissue Bank. Other investigators may have received samples from these same tissues. We performed whole genome sequencing of DNA from a homogenized primary breast tumor, locally-involved axillary lymph node, and normal tissue (whole blood) from a patient who had no clinical evidence of visceral metastases. Following patient consent, a fresh tumor and lymph node sample were each snapfrozen from the resected specimen. The specimen was obtained at the time of mastectomy and axillary node clearance for a 10 cm, grade 2, invasive ductal carcinoma - all (22/22) lymph nodes were involved. Staging investigations did not reveal any evidence of distant metastases. The project was approved by the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust tissue bank in accordance with the Human Tissue Act (HTA) guidelines. Tumor and node were microdissected to ensure 90% quality of neoplastic cells and verified by an experienced histopathologist. There had been no previous anticancer treatment. DNA was extracted using the Gentra Puregene Cell Kit (QIAGEN). Whole genome sequencing of samples was carried out by Complete Genomics Inc.. Sequencing involved the use of a four adaptor library protocol, as detailed in Drmanac [17]. Briefly, sequencing substrates were generated by means of genomic DNA fragmentation and recursive cutting with type IIs restriction enzymes and directional adaptor insertion. The resulting circles were then replicated with w29 polymerase and rolling circle replication (RCR) [18] by synchronized synthesis to obtain hundreds of tandem copies of the sequencing substrate, referred to as DNA ‘nanoballs’ (DNBs), which were adsorbed to silicon substrates with grid-patterned arrays to produce DNA nanoarrays. High accuracy cPAL sequencing chemistry was then used on automated sequencing machines to independently read up to 10 bases left and right of each of the four adaptor insertion sites (i.e., a total of 8 oligonucleotide anchor insertion sites), resulting in a total of 31- to 35-base matepaired reads (62 to 70 bases per DNB). DNA nanoball intensity information proceeded with the following steps: 1, background correction; 2, image registration; and 3, intensity extraction, during which the intensity data from each field was subjected to base calling, which itself involved four major steps: 1, crosstalk correction; 2, normalization; 3, elucidation of the base present; and 4, raw base score computation. The resulting mate-paired reads were aligned to the hg19/NCBI Build 37 reference genome in a two-stage process: first, left and right mate-pairs were aligned independently using indexing of the reference genome; second, for every location of a single arm identified in the first stage, local alignment at approximately the mate-pair distance was
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
3 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
applied to the other arm. At locations selected for likely differences from reference, mapped reads were assembled into a best-fit, diploid sequence with a custom software suite employing both Bayesian and de Bruijn graph techniques as described previously [19]. This process yielded diploid reference with either variant or no-calls at each genomic location, and with associated variant quality scores. Variants were called using CGA Tools (Complete Genomics Inc.). For the purposes of this study, ‘variants’ includes single nucleotide variants (SNVs), insertions, deletions, and substitutions. In addition, we judged variants as ‘known’ if they were already listed in dbSNP v132 [20], whilst we also overlapped each called variant with COSMIC [21]. Gene enrichment was performed with the Genetic Association Database (GAD) [22] and the Gene Ontology (GO) [23]. In all of our analyses, we narrowed our focus to variants called in genes and their flanking regions and used only those that had passed CGA Tools quality control.
Results and Discussion The output for each sample exceeded 380,000 gigabase (Gb) (mean 382,072 Gb), with .97% of the genome of each sample being mapped successfully to the reference genome. Depth of coverage over all mapped bases at 40x or higher was .92% and .95% when considering the exome (Table 1). There were more SNVs called than other variant. The proportion of SNVs, insertions, deletions, and substitutions was similar between matched tumor and node (means of 84.1%, 7%, 6.9%, and 2%, respectively) (Fig. 1); however, the distribution of variants that were unique to the node differed, with a higher percentage of insertions (26.6%) and deletions (25.6%) - there was also a modest increase (6.4%) in substitutions. This may reflect increased genomic instability, which has been reported previously in breast cancer [24, 25], or structural CIN (sCIN), a potential hallmark of metastatic cancer [26]. Variants unique to the node overlapped a total of 347 genes and GO enrichment of these genes revealed three significant terms (P,0.0001): keratinocyte differentiation (GO:0030216); keratinization (GO:0031424); and epidermal cell differentiation (GO:0009913). Of these 347 genes, 55 had a variant that resulted in a frameshift in the coding sequence, and GO enrichment of this sub-group revealed no significant term (using P50.01 as cut-off). When we focused on those variants likely to produce a functional impact (i.e., splice acceptor/donor variants, missense, and also insertions, deletions, or substitutions in coding regions) a total of 4,763 genes contained a variant or variants of likely functional impact in the tumor and 4,739 in the node. The top GAD term associated with these was breast cancer (P,0.001 for tumor and node), whilst the top-associated GO biological process was cell surface receptor linked signal transduction (P,0.0001 for both tumor and node). Considering genes whose variants were unique to the node, the top GO biological process term was regulation of transcription (DNA-dependent) (P,0.01), which suggests that transcriptional changes promote metastasis. We observed many variants located
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
4 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
Table 1. Total output (Gb) and depth of coverage for each sample. Depth of coverage Whole genome (%)
Exome (%)
Sample
Output (Gb)
Successfully mapped (%)
$5x
$10x
$20x
$30x
$40x
$5x
$10x
$20x
$30x
$40x
Normal blood
392,946
97.7
99.5
99.1
98.0
96.2
93.6
99.9
99.7
99.3
98.6
97.3
Primary tumor
384,178
97.4
99.5
99.1
97.6
95.4
92.2
99.8
99.7
99.1
97.9
96.1
Axillary lymph-node
381,091
97.4
99.5
99.0
97.5
95.3
92.2
99.8
99.6
99.0
97.8
95.9
The amount that was successfully mapped to the reference genome for each sample was .97%, with a mean of 92.7% of each base achieving $40x coverage (or 96.4% for the exome fraction). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346.t001
upstream of the transcription start-site (TSS), within the promoter region. A variant in this region could potentially alter transcription of the gene downstream of the variant.
Fig. 1. Changing proportion of SNVs, insertions, deletions, and substitutions across samples. Variants that passed QC and that were called at any read-depth in genes and gene-coding regions were selected. The proportions of these variant types changed when looking at those unique to the node, with much higher proportions of insertions, deletions, and substitutions being found. A, Tumor; B, Node; C, unique to node. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346.g001
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
5 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
There were 6 tumor and/or node mutations listed in the COSMIC database that were not present in the matched normal blood sample: three were unique to the tumor; the node harbored a single unique mutation; and two mutations were common to both (Table 2). The unique mutation in the node was an insertion, leading to a frameshift in the coding sequence of PDS5B, a gene that interacts with the cohesion complex to maintain accurate sister chromatid segregation during mitosis and meiosis and suggested previously as a tumor suppressor [27, 28]. Of note, frameshifts in PDS5B have been reported recently in gastric and colorectal carcinomas with high microsatellite instability [28]. The two mutations common to the primary tumor and node were SNVs in ARAP3 and TP53. TP53 is a tumor suppressor which functions as a transcription factor and also plays a key role in the cellular response to stress [29]. Germline mutations in TP53 causes LiFraumeni Syndrome [30] and somatic mutations are found in many human cancers [31]. ARAP3, mediates rearrangements to the cytoskeleton and cell shape; in a study by Yagi [32], the expression and phosphorylation of ARAP3 was found to reduce invasiveness of gastric carcinoma to the peritoneum, a function that was suppressed by mutations within the ARAP3 gene. The mutations unique to the primary tumor may have been derived from a sub-clone unrelated to the metastasis. These included SNVs in MUC12 and ZNF99, two largely unresearched genes, and a single base deletion in FHOD1, a gene found to participate in cytoskeletal changes during endothelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) but whose depletion reduced the ability of EMT cancer cells to progress in vivo [33]. In our study, it is possible that the single base deletion in FHOD1 reduced the activity of the gene and, in turn, reduced the metastatic potential of the sub-clone in which the deletion appeared, and might explain why we failed to find this SNV in the nodal metastasis. The similarities and differences between tumor and involved node may indicate intratumoral heterogeneity, that the nodal metastasis was derived from a minor sub-clone of the tumor not represented in the tumor tissue that was sequenced or may reflect sampling when the tissue was selected for sequencing. In order to more accurately detect variants indicative of ‘truncal’ mutations [8], we raised the read-depth threshold to focus on those variants with a position readdepth of $100 and looked for low frequency somatic variants that may have arisen recently in the clonal evolution process. The majority of variants found at a read-depth of $100 were already known and were excluded from analysis; however, novel variants were also detected that were unique to either the tumor or the node (Table 3). The lowest frequency unique variant detected by variant type (SNV, insertion, deletion, and substitution, respectively) was 0.88%, 3.7%, 10.07%, and 4.57% in the tumor, and 7.41%, 3.01%, 10.07%, 2.78% in the node). The SNV variant frequency increased from 0.88% to 7.41% from tumor to node, which could reflect sample differences, with a more heterogeneous mix of clones in the tumor, which then masks the presence of variants in the sample. The node; however, may represent a dominant clone that metastasized from the primary tumor but has only recently branched/evolved.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
6 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
Table 2. COSMIC mutations called in the primary tumor and axillary lymph node. Chromosome
Start bp
End bp
Type
Reference
Variant
COSMIC ID
Symbol
Tumor?
Node?
5
141033869
141033870
SNV
T
G
COSM32578
ARAP3
Yes
Yes
7
100612086
100612087
SNV
A
G
COSM147730
MUC12
Yes
No
13
33344887
33344887
Insertion
-
A
COSM85618
PDS5B
No
Yes
16
67267851
67267852
Deletion
G
-
COSM50200
FHOD1
Yes
No
17
7577093
7577094
SNV
G
A
COSM10704
TP53
Yes
Yes
19
22954575
22954576
SNV
A
G
COSM140394
ZNF99
Yes
No
Mutations were not present in the normal blood sample. Three mutations were unique to the tumor whilst the node harbored a single unique mutation: a frameshift in the coding sequence of PDS5B, a gene that interacts with the cohesion complex to maintain accurate sister chromatid segregation during mitosis and meiosis and suggested previously as a tumor suppressor [27, 28]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346.t002
We also focused our analysis on variants called in the chromosomal instability 25 (CIN25) genes, shown to be predictive of poor clinical outcome in several cancers [34]. The majority of variants called in CIN25 genes were common to all samples (normal blood, tumor, and node), were called at comparable frequencies, and were already known and thus regarded as polymorphisms. We filtered out all variants called in the normal blood sample and thereafter found a single variant that was common to both tumor and node, as well as others that were unique to either the tumor or node (S1 Table). The majority of these variants were located upstream of the TSS in the region of RNA polymerase binding [35], which could result in altered expression of the target gene [36–38]. The single variant common to the tumor and node was an insertion upstream of the TSS of TOP2A at high
Table 3. Known and novel variant counts at a read-depth of $100 that overlapped genes and their flanking regions.
SNVs
Insertions
Deletions
Substitutions
Primary tumor
Axillary lymph-node
Unique to axillary lymphUnique to primary tumor node
Total calls
57829
55203
1446
1400
dbSNP
55823
53349
943
954
Not in dbSNP
2006
1854
503
446
Total calls
2721
2652
196
187
dbSNP
2342
2296
73
71
Not in dbSNP
379
356
123
116
Total calls
2478
2431
93
98
dbSNP
1972
1933
34
38 60
Not in dbSNP
506
498
59
Total calls
1478
1503
239
222
dbSNP
956
987
60
71
Not in dbSNP
522
516
179
151
Variants were judged as known by their being listed in dbSNP. Variant counts for those unique to both samples are also shown. The lowest frequency variant detected for each variant type (SNV, insertion, deletion, and substitution, respectively) in each sample was 0.88%, 3.7%, 10.07%, and 4.57% in the tumor, and 7.41%, 3.01%, 10.07%, 2.78% in the node. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346.t003
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
7 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
frequency (86.1%, tumor; 82.4%, node), suggesting homozygosity in both or perhaps amplification of this locus. TOP2A is one of four genes, including AURKA, FOXM1, and TPX2, whose expression is significantly associated with tumor proliferation and can segregate breast cancers by outcome [39]. CIN25 variants unique to the node included a single base insertion (23.4% frequency) in the 39 untranslated region (39UTR) of TGIF2, and also a predominant three-base insertion (92.9% frequency) upstream of the TSS of the same gene. Given the variable frequencies of the two TGIF2 variants, it suggests that at least two distinct clones predominate in the node, as suggested by Gerlinger [8]. TGIF2 is a DNA-binding homeobox and is a transcriptional repressor [40] that is highly expressed in ovarian cancer [41] and has been suggested as having an indirect role in metastasis through micro RNA methylation [42]. The only other variant unique to the node was an insertion upstream of the TSS of CCNB2 (92.3% frequency), increased expression of which has been suggested to result in CIN in cancer [43].
Conclusions In conclusion, whole genome deep sequencing of a matched primary tumor and lymph node metastasis revealed largely overlapping alterations and that there were very few mutations unique to the involved node. Variants common to tumor and node include SNVs in TP53 and ARAP3, which mediate rearrangements to the cytoskeleton and cell shape, and an insertion in TOP2A, whose expression is significantly associated with tumor proliferation and can segregate breast cancers by outcome. However, significant conclusions regarding early dissemination needs analysis of a larger cohort of samples.
Sequence Data All sequence data is available at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) under accession number PRJEB7607 (ERP008528).
Supporting Information S1 Table. Variants in CIN25 genes: overlap between tumor and node. Many variants were found in the region upstream of the TSS and could therefore alter the respective gene expression of each. Variants are described using the following syntax: variant type, base change, genomic position, gene region, functional impact, frequency. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346.s001 (DOC)
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
8 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: JS RCC JAS. Performed the experiments: KB LK. Analyzed the data: KB. Contributed reagents/materials/ analysis tools: JHG CG JS RCC JAS. Wrote the paper: KB LK NP DSG KP JS JAS. Interpreted the results: DSG KP JAS.
References 1. Kiricuta IC, Willner J, Kolbl O, Bohndorf W (1994) The prognostic significance of the supraclavicular lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 28: 387. 2. Martinez-Ramos D, Escrig-Sos J, Alcalde-Sanchez M, Torrella-Ramos A, Salvador-Sanchis J ˆ N (2009) Disease-Free Survival and Prognostic Significance of Metastatic Lymph Node Ratio in T1-T2A Positive Breast Cancer Patients. A Population Registry-Based Study in a European Country. World Journal of Surgery 33: 1659–1664. 3. Querzoli P, Pedriali M, Rinaldi R, Lombardi AR, Biganzoli E, et al. (2006) Axillary Lymph Node Nanometastases Are Prognostic Factors for Disease-Free Survival and Metastatic Relapse in Breast Cancer Patients. Clinical Cancer Research 12: 6696–6701. 4. Jatoi I, Hilsenbeck SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK (1999) Significance of Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 17: 2334. 5. Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, et al. (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 10869–10874. 6. Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin S-F, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, et al. (2012) The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486: 346. 7. Baird R, Caldas C (2013) Genetic heterogeneity in breast cancer: the road to personalized medicine? BMC Medicine 11: 151. 8. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, et al. (2012) Intratumor Heterogeneity and Branched Evolution Revealed by Multiregion Sequencing. New England Journal of Medicine 366: 883–892. 9. Stephens PJ, McBride DJ, Lin M-L, Varela I, Pleasance ED, et al. (2009) Complex landscapes of somatic rearrangement in human breast cancer genomes. Nature 462: 1005. 10. Geyer FC, Weigelt B, Natrajan R, Lambros MBK, de Biase D, et al. (2010) Molecular analysis reveals a genetic basis for the phenotypic diversity of metaplastic breast carcinomas. The Journal of Pathology 220: 562. 11. Nowell PC (1976) The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science 194: 23. 12. Greaves M, Maley CC (2012) Clonal evolution in cancer. Nature 481: 306. 13. Rajagopalan H, Jallepalli PV, Rago C, Velculescu VE, Kinzler KW, et al. (2004) Inactivation of hCDC4 can cause chromosomal instability. Nature 428: 77. 14. Burrell RA, McGranahan N, Bartek J, Swanton C (2013) The causes and consequences of genetic heterogeneity in cancer evolution. Nature 501: 338. 15. Lee AJX, Endesfelder D, Rowan AJ, Walther A, Birkbak NJ, et al. (2011) Chromosomal Instability Confers Intrinsic Multidrug Resistance. Cancer Research 71: 1858–1870. 16. Heng H, Bremer S, Stevens J, Horne S, Liu G, et al. (2013) Chromosomal instability (CIN): what it is and why it is crucial to cancer evolution. Cancer Metastasis Rev 32: 325–340. 17. Drmanac R, Sparks AB, Callow MJ, Halpern AL, Burns NL, et al. (2010) Human Genome Sequencing Using Unchained Base Reads on Self-Assembling DNA Nanoarrays. Science 327: 78–81.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
9 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
18. Blanco L, Bernad A, La´zaro JM, Martı´n G, Garmendia C, et al. (1989) Highly efficient DNA synthesis by the phage phi 29 DNA polymerase. Symmetrical mode of DNA replication. Journal of Biological Chemistry 264: 8935–8940. 19. Carnevali P, Baccash J, Halpern A, Nazarenko I, Nilsen G, et al. (2012) Computational Techniques for Human Genome Resequencing Using Mated Gapped Reads. Journal of Computational Biology 19: 279. 20. Sherry ST, Ward MH, Kholodov M, Baker J, Phan L, et al. (2001) dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Research 29: 308–311. 21. Forbes SA, Bhamra G, Bamford S, Dawson E, Kok C, et al. (2001) The Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC). Current Protocols in Human Genetics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 22. Campbell N (2004) Genetic association database. Nature Reviews Genetics 5: 87. 23. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, et al. (2000) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nature genetics 25: 25. 24. Kwei KA, Kung Y, Salari K, Holcomb IN, Pollack JR (2010) Genomic instability in breast cancer: Pathogenesis and clinical implications. Molecular Oncology 4: 255–266. 25. Shaw J, Page K, Blighe K, Hava N, Guttery D, et al. (2011) Genomic analysis of circulating cell free DNA infers breast cancer dormancy. Genome Research. 26. McGranahan N, Burrell RA, Endesfelder D, Novelli MR, Swanton C (2012) Cancer chromosomal instability: therapeutic and diagnostic challenges. EMBO Rep 13: 528–538. 27. Denes V, Pilichowska M, Makarovskiy A, Carpinito G, Geck P (2010) Loss of a cohesin-linked suppressor APRIN (Pds5b) disrupts stem cell programs in embryonal carcinoma: an emerging cohesin role in tumor suppression. Oncogene 29: 3446. 28. Kim MS, An CH, Yoo NJ, Lee SH (2013) Frameshift mutations of chromosome cohesion-related genes SGOL1 and PDS5B in gastric and colorectal cancers with high microsatellite instability. Human pathology 44: 2234. 29. Vogelstein B, Lane D, Levine AJ (2000) Surfing the p53 network. Nature 408: 307. 30. Kamihara J, Rana HQ, Garber JE (2014) Germline TP53 Mutations and the Changing Landscape of Li– Fraumeni Syndrome. Human Mutation 35: 654. 31. Petitjean A, Achatz MIW, Borresen-Dale AL, Hainaut P, Olivier M (2007) TP53 mutations in human cancers: functional selection and impact on cancer prognosis and outcomes. Oncogene 26: 2157. 32. Yagi R, Tanaka M, Sasaki K, Kamata R, Nakanishi Y, et al. (2011) ARAP3 inhibits peritoneal dissemination of scirrhous gastric carcinoma cells by regulating cell adhesion and invasion. Oncogene 30: 1413. 33. Gardberg M, Kaipio K, Lehtinen L, Mikkonen P, Heuser VD, et al. (2013) FHOD1, a Formin Upregulated in Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition, Participates in Cancer Cell Migration and Invasion. PLoS ONE 8: e74923. 34. Carter SL, Eklund AC, Kohane IS, Harris LN, Szallasi Z (2006) A signature of chromosomal instability inferred from gene expression profiles predicts clinical outcome in multiple human cancers. Nat Genet 38: 1043–1048. 35. Gilbert SF (2000) Developmental Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland (MA). 36. Brown T (2002) Genomes. Oxford: Wiley-Liss. 37. Jechlinger W, Glocker J, Haidinger W, Matis A, Szostak MP, et al. (2005) Modulation of gene expression by promoter mutants of the l cI857/pRM/pR system. Journal of Biotechnology 116: 11. 38. Theuns J, Brouwers N, Engelborghs S, Sleegers K, Bogaerts V, et al. (2006) Promoter Mutations That Increase Amyloid Precursor-Protein Expression Are Associated with Alzheimer Disease. The American Journal of Human Genetics 78: 936–946. 39. Sza´sz A, Li Q, Eklund A, Sztupinszki Z, Rowan A, et al. (2013) The CIN4 chromosomal instability qPCR classifier defines tumor aneuploidy and stratifies outcome in grade 2 breast cancer. PLoS One 8: e56707. 40. Melhuish TA, Gallo CM, Wotton D (2001) TGIF2 Interacts with Histone Deacetylase 1 and Represses Transcription. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276: 32109–32114.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
10 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
41. Imoto I, Pimkhaokham A, Watanabe T, Saito-Ohara F, Soeda E, et al. (2000) Amplification and Overexpression of TGIF2, a Novel Homeobox Gene of the TALE Superclass, in Ovarian Cancer Cell Lines. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 276: 264–270. 42. Suzuki M, Yoshino I (2008) Identification of microRNAs caused by DNA methylation that induce metastasis. Future Oncology 4: 775–777. 43. Sarafan-Vasseur N, Lamy A, Bourguignon J, Le Pessot F, Hieter P, et al. (2002) Overexpression of B-type cyclins alters chromosomal segregation. Oncogene 21: 2051–2057.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
11 / 11
Whole Genome Sequence Analysis Suggests Intratumoral Heterogeneity in Dissemination of Breast Cancer to Lymph Nodes Kevin Blighe1", Laura Kenny2", Naina Patel2, David S. Guttery1, Karen Page1, Julian H. Gronau2, Cyrus Golshani2, Justin Stebbing2, R.Charles Coombes2, Jacqueline A. Shaw1* 1. Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine, Robert Kilpatrick Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, LE2 7LX, United Kingdom, 2. Division of Cancer, Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, W12 0NN, United Kingdom *[email protected] " These authors are joint first authors on this work. OPEN ACCESS Citation: Blighe K, Kenny L, Patel N, Guttery DS, Page K, et al. (2014) Whole Genome Sequence Analysis Suggests Intratumoral Heterogeneity in Dissemination of Breast Cancer to Lymph Nodes. PLoS ONE 9(12): e115346. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0115346 Editor: Jian-Xin Gao, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China Received: July 14, 2014 Accepted: November 22, 2014 Published: December 29, 2014 Copyright: ß 2014 Blighe et al. This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All sequence data is available at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) under accession number PRJEB7607 (ERP008528). Funding: This study was supported by a grant from Complete Genomics, Incorporated. The research undertaken was additionally supported by the Imperial EXperimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC), Imperial Cancer Research UK (CRUK) Centre, and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London. KP and DSG are funded by a programme grant award from CRUK to JS and RCC. KB was funded by CRUK while in Leicester. LK is funded by an NIHR Clinician Scientist grant
Abstract Background: Intratumoral heterogeneity may help drive resistance to targeted therapies in cancer. In breast cancer, the presence of nodal metastases is a key indicator of poorer overall survival. The aim of this study was to identify somatic genetic alterations in early dissemination of breast cancer by whole genome next generation sequencing (NGS) of a primary breast tumor, a matched locally-involved axillary lymph node and healthy normal DNA from blood. Methods: Whole genome NGS was performed on 12 mg (range 11.1–13.3 mg) of DNA isolated from fresh-frozen primary breast tumor, axillary lymph node and peripheral blood following the DNA nanoball sequencing protocol. Single nucleotide variants, insertions, deletions, and substitutions were identified through a bioinformatic pipeline and compared to CIN25, a key set of genes associated with tumor metastasis. Results: Whole genome sequencing revealed overlapping variants between the tumor and node, but also variants that were unique to each. Novel mutations unique to the node included those found in two CIN25 targets, TGIF2 and CCNB2, which are related to transcription cyclin activity and chromosomal stability, respectively, and a unique frameshift in PDS5B, which is required for accurate sister chromatid segregation during cell division. We also identified dominant clonal variants that progressed from tumor to node, including SNVs in TP53 and ARAP3, which mediates rearrangements to the cytoskeleton and cell shape, and an insertion in
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
1 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
(09/009). Tissue samples were provided by the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Tissue Bank. Other investigators may have received samples from these same tissues. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Competing Interests: The authors undertook the study in collaboration with Complete Genomics, Incorporated, who carried out and funded the sequencing. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
TOP2A, the expression of which is significantly associated with tumor proliferation and can segregate breast cancers by outcome. Conclusion: This case study provides preliminary evidence that primary tumor and early nodal metastasis have largely overlapping somatic genetic alterations. There were very few mutations unique to the involved node. However, significant conclusions regarding early dissemination needs analysis of a larger number of patient samples.
Introduction The presence of tumor spread to local lymph nodes is one of the most important prognostic factors affecting patient survival in breast cancer [1–4]. Many treatment strategies are largely based on protein expression measurements of steroid hormone receptors and Her2, which broadly segregates tumors into 5 molecular subtypes [5]. However, genetic profiling of primary tumors suggests that the landscape is much more complex than this, with the identification of at least 10 distinct subtypes by the METABRIC consortium [6], which has implications for both prognosis and treatment [5, 7]. In the era of targeted therapeutics, intratumoral heterogeneity is being increasingly recognized as an important barrier to the success of cancer treatments. Multiregion sequencing of samples taken from the same renal cell carcinoma and distant metastases revealed that more than 60% of all somatic mutations were not detectable across every tumor biopsy that was taken, suggesting that we have previously underestimated the clinical impact of genetic complexity in individuals as a result of heterogeneity [8]. Indeed, the intratumoral heterogeneity seen in renal carcinoma led to phenotypic diversity in the form of activating mutations in MTOR, which may predict for intrinsic resistance to drugs targeting the PI3K-MTOR pathway. On the other hand, intertumoral heterogeneity has been equally well described previously for primary breast cancer [9], and even in the phenotypically diverse but rare metaplastic breast cancer subtype [10]. The origin of tumor heterogeneity is frequently debated and it is believed that it could arise as a consequence of clonal evolution [11, 12]. Meanwhile, chromosomal instability (CIN) is a hallmark of human cancer that is characterized by elevated rates of chromosome miss-segregation [13, 14] and is thought to be due to specific gene alterations that arise before malignant transformation occurs. Chromosomal instability can give rise to a heterogeneously aneuploid tumor that could enable selective adaptation and evolution; moreover, CIN is a process that is required for metastasis and resistance to therapy to occur [15, 16]. Identifying genetic drivers of CIN is thus central to further understanding this type of genomic instability. and —in this way— understanding the origin of tumor heterogeneity.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
2 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
In this study, we sought to define genetic variability early in the metastatic process through the comparison of a primary breast tumor with paired locallyinvolved axillary lymph node in DNA isolated from the same patient by whole genome sequencing.
Materials and Methods Tissue samples were provided by the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Tissue Bank. Other investigators may have received samples from these same tissues. We performed whole genome sequencing of DNA from a homogenized primary breast tumor, locally-involved axillary lymph node, and normal tissue (whole blood) from a patient who had no clinical evidence of visceral metastases. Following patient consent, a fresh tumor and lymph node sample were each snapfrozen from the resected specimen. The specimen was obtained at the time of mastectomy and axillary node clearance for a 10 cm, grade 2, invasive ductal carcinoma - all (22/22) lymph nodes were involved. Staging investigations did not reveal any evidence of distant metastases. The project was approved by the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust tissue bank in accordance with the Human Tissue Act (HTA) guidelines. Tumor and node were microdissected to ensure 90% quality of neoplastic cells and verified by an experienced histopathologist. There had been no previous anticancer treatment. DNA was extracted using the Gentra Puregene Cell Kit (QIAGEN). Whole genome sequencing of samples was carried out by Complete Genomics Inc.. Sequencing involved the use of a four adaptor library protocol, as detailed in Drmanac [17]. Briefly, sequencing substrates were generated by means of genomic DNA fragmentation and recursive cutting with type IIs restriction enzymes and directional adaptor insertion. The resulting circles were then replicated with w29 polymerase and rolling circle replication (RCR) [18] by synchronized synthesis to obtain hundreds of tandem copies of the sequencing substrate, referred to as DNA ‘nanoballs’ (DNBs), which were adsorbed to silicon substrates with grid-patterned arrays to produce DNA nanoarrays. High accuracy cPAL sequencing chemistry was then used on automated sequencing machines to independently read up to 10 bases left and right of each of the four adaptor insertion sites (i.e., a total of 8 oligonucleotide anchor insertion sites), resulting in a total of 31- to 35-base matepaired reads (62 to 70 bases per DNB). DNA nanoball intensity information proceeded with the following steps: 1, background correction; 2, image registration; and 3, intensity extraction, during which the intensity data from each field was subjected to base calling, which itself involved four major steps: 1, crosstalk correction; 2, normalization; 3, elucidation of the base present; and 4, raw base score computation. The resulting mate-paired reads were aligned to the hg19/NCBI Build 37 reference genome in a two-stage process: first, left and right mate-pairs were aligned independently using indexing of the reference genome; second, for every location of a single arm identified in the first stage, local alignment at approximately the mate-pair distance was
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
3 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
applied to the other arm. At locations selected for likely differences from reference, mapped reads were assembled into a best-fit, diploid sequence with a custom software suite employing both Bayesian and de Bruijn graph techniques as described previously [19]. This process yielded diploid reference with either variant or no-calls at each genomic location, and with associated variant quality scores. Variants were called using CGA Tools (Complete Genomics Inc.). For the purposes of this study, ‘variants’ includes single nucleotide variants (SNVs), insertions, deletions, and substitutions. In addition, we judged variants as ‘known’ if they were already listed in dbSNP v132 [20], whilst we also overlapped each called variant with COSMIC [21]. Gene enrichment was performed with the Genetic Association Database (GAD) [22] and the Gene Ontology (GO) [23]. In all of our analyses, we narrowed our focus to variants called in genes and their flanking regions and used only those that had passed CGA Tools quality control.
Results and Discussion The output for each sample exceeded 380,000 gigabase (Gb) (mean 382,072 Gb), with .97% of the genome of each sample being mapped successfully to the reference genome. Depth of coverage over all mapped bases at 40x or higher was .92% and .95% when considering the exome (Table 1). There were more SNVs called than other variant. The proportion of SNVs, insertions, deletions, and substitutions was similar between matched tumor and node (means of 84.1%, 7%, 6.9%, and 2%, respectively) (Fig. 1); however, the distribution of variants that were unique to the node differed, with a higher percentage of insertions (26.6%) and deletions (25.6%) - there was also a modest increase (6.4%) in substitutions. This may reflect increased genomic instability, which has been reported previously in breast cancer [24, 25], or structural CIN (sCIN), a potential hallmark of metastatic cancer [26]. Variants unique to the node overlapped a total of 347 genes and GO enrichment of these genes revealed three significant terms (P,0.0001): keratinocyte differentiation (GO:0030216); keratinization (GO:0031424); and epidermal cell differentiation (GO:0009913). Of these 347 genes, 55 had a variant that resulted in a frameshift in the coding sequence, and GO enrichment of this sub-group revealed no significant term (using P50.01 as cut-off). When we focused on those variants likely to produce a functional impact (i.e., splice acceptor/donor variants, missense, and also insertions, deletions, or substitutions in coding regions) a total of 4,763 genes contained a variant or variants of likely functional impact in the tumor and 4,739 in the node. The top GAD term associated with these was breast cancer (P,0.001 for tumor and node), whilst the top-associated GO biological process was cell surface receptor linked signal transduction (P,0.0001 for both tumor and node). Considering genes whose variants were unique to the node, the top GO biological process term was regulation of transcription (DNA-dependent) (P,0.01), which suggests that transcriptional changes promote metastasis. We observed many variants located
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
4 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
Table 1. Total output (Gb) and depth of coverage for each sample. Depth of coverage Whole genome (%)
Exome (%)
Sample
Output (Gb)
Successfully mapped (%)
$5x
$10x
$20x
$30x
$40x
$5x
$10x
$20x
$30x
$40x
Normal blood
392,946
97.7
99.5
99.1
98.0
96.2
93.6
99.9
99.7
99.3
98.6
97.3
Primary tumor
384,178
97.4
99.5
99.1
97.6
95.4
92.2
99.8
99.7
99.1
97.9
96.1
Axillary lymph-node
381,091
97.4
99.5
99.0
97.5
95.3
92.2
99.8
99.6
99.0
97.8
95.9
The amount that was successfully mapped to the reference genome for each sample was .97%, with a mean of 92.7% of each base achieving $40x coverage (or 96.4% for the exome fraction). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346.t001
upstream of the transcription start-site (TSS), within the promoter region. A variant in this region could potentially alter transcription of the gene downstream of the variant.
Fig. 1. Changing proportion of SNVs, insertions, deletions, and substitutions across samples. Variants that passed QC and that were called at any read-depth in genes and gene-coding regions were selected. The proportions of these variant types changed when looking at those unique to the node, with much higher proportions of insertions, deletions, and substitutions being found. A, Tumor; B, Node; C, unique to node. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346.g001
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
5 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
There were 6 tumor and/or node mutations listed in the COSMIC database that were not present in the matched normal blood sample: three were unique to the tumor; the node harbored a single unique mutation; and two mutations were common to both (Table 2). The unique mutation in the node was an insertion, leading to a frameshift in the coding sequence of PDS5B, a gene that interacts with the cohesion complex to maintain accurate sister chromatid segregation during mitosis and meiosis and suggested previously as a tumor suppressor [27, 28]. Of note, frameshifts in PDS5B have been reported recently in gastric and colorectal carcinomas with high microsatellite instability [28]. The two mutations common to the primary tumor and node were SNVs in ARAP3 and TP53. TP53 is a tumor suppressor which functions as a transcription factor and also plays a key role in the cellular response to stress [29]. Germline mutations in TP53 causes LiFraumeni Syndrome [30] and somatic mutations are found in many human cancers [31]. ARAP3, mediates rearrangements to the cytoskeleton and cell shape; in a study by Yagi [32], the expression and phosphorylation of ARAP3 was found to reduce invasiveness of gastric carcinoma to the peritoneum, a function that was suppressed by mutations within the ARAP3 gene. The mutations unique to the primary tumor may have been derived from a sub-clone unrelated to the metastasis. These included SNVs in MUC12 and ZNF99, two largely unresearched genes, and a single base deletion in FHOD1, a gene found to participate in cytoskeletal changes during endothelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) but whose depletion reduced the ability of EMT cancer cells to progress in vivo [33]. In our study, it is possible that the single base deletion in FHOD1 reduced the activity of the gene and, in turn, reduced the metastatic potential of the sub-clone in which the deletion appeared, and might explain why we failed to find this SNV in the nodal metastasis. The similarities and differences between tumor and involved node may indicate intratumoral heterogeneity, that the nodal metastasis was derived from a minor sub-clone of the tumor not represented in the tumor tissue that was sequenced or may reflect sampling when the tissue was selected for sequencing. In order to more accurately detect variants indicative of ‘truncal’ mutations [8], we raised the read-depth threshold to focus on those variants with a position readdepth of $100 and looked for low frequency somatic variants that may have arisen recently in the clonal evolution process. The majority of variants found at a read-depth of $100 were already known and were excluded from analysis; however, novel variants were also detected that were unique to either the tumor or the node (Table 3). The lowest frequency unique variant detected by variant type (SNV, insertion, deletion, and substitution, respectively) was 0.88%, 3.7%, 10.07%, and 4.57% in the tumor, and 7.41%, 3.01%, 10.07%, 2.78% in the node). The SNV variant frequency increased from 0.88% to 7.41% from tumor to node, which could reflect sample differences, with a more heterogeneous mix of clones in the tumor, which then masks the presence of variants in the sample. The node; however, may represent a dominant clone that metastasized from the primary tumor but has only recently branched/evolved.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
6 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
Table 2. COSMIC mutations called in the primary tumor and axillary lymph node. Chromosome
Start bp
End bp
Type
Reference
Variant
COSMIC ID
Symbol
Tumor?
Node?
5
141033869
141033870
SNV
T
G
COSM32578
ARAP3
Yes
Yes
7
100612086
100612087
SNV
A
G
COSM147730
MUC12
Yes
No
13
33344887
33344887
Insertion
-
A
COSM85618
PDS5B
No
Yes
16
67267851
67267852
Deletion
G
-
COSM50200
FHOD1
Yes
No
17
7577093
7577094
SNV
G
A
COSM10704
TP53
Yes
Yes
19
22954575
22954576
SNV
A
G
COSM140394
ZNF99
Yes
No
Mutations were not present in the normal blood sample. Three mutations were unique to the tumor whilst the node harbored a single unique mutation: a frameshift in the coding sequence of PDS5B, a gene that interacts with the cohesion complex to maintain accurate sister chromatid segregation during mitosis and meiosis and suggested previously as a tumor suppressor [27, 28]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346.t002
We also focused our analysis on variants called in the chromosomal instability 25 (CIN25) genes, shown to be predictive of poor clinical outcome in several cancers [34]. The majority of variants called in CIN25 genes were common to all samples (normal blood, tumor, and node), were called at comparable frequencies, and were already known and thus regarded as polymorphisms. We filtered out all variants called in the normal blood sample and thereafter found a single variant that was common to both tumor and node, as well as others that were unique to either the tumor or node (S1 Table). The majority of these variants were located upstream of the TSS in the region of RNA polymerase binding [35], which could result in altered expression of the target gene [36–38]. The single variant common to the tumor and node was an insertion upstream of the TSS of TOP2A at high
Table 3. Known and novel variant counts at a read-depth of $100 that overlapped genes and their flanking regions.
SNVs
Insertions
Deletions
Substitutions
Primary tumor
Axillary lymph-node
Unique to axillary lymphUnique to primary tumor node
Total calls
57829
55203
1446
1400
dbSNP
55823
53349
943
954
Not in dbSNP
2006
1854
503
446
Total calls
2721
2652
196
187
dbSNP
2342
2296
73
71
Not in dbSNP
379
356
123
116
Total calls
2478
2431
93
98
dbSNP
1972
1933
34
38 60
Not in dbSNP
506
498
59
Total calls
1478
1503
239
222
dbSNP
956
987
60
71
Not in dbSNP
522
516
179
151
Variants were judged as known by their being listed in dbSNP. Variant counts for those unique to both samples are also shown. The lowest frequency variant detected for each variant type (SNV, insertion, deletion, and substitution, respectively) in each sample was 0.88%, 3.7%, 10.07%, and 4.57% in the tumor, and 7.41%, 3.01%, 10.07%, 2.78% in the node. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346.t003
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
7 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
frequency (86.1%, tumor; 82.4%, node), suggesting homozygosity in both or perhaps amplification of this locus. TOP2A is one of four genes, including AURKA, FOXM1, and TPX2, whose expression is significantly associated with tumor proliferation and can segregate breast cancers by outcome [39]. CIN25 variants unique to the node included a single base insertion (23.4% frequency) in the 39 untranslated region (39UTR) of TGIF2, and also a predominant three-base insertion (92.9% frequency) upstream of the TSS of the same gene. Given the variable frequencies of the two TGIF2 variants, it suggests that at least two distinct clones predominate in the node, as suggested by Gerlinger [8]. TGIF2 is a DNA-binding homeobox and is a transcriptional repressor [40] that is highly expressed in ovarian cancer [41] and has been suggested as having an indirect role in metastasis through micro RNA methylation [42]. The only other variant unique to the node was an insertion upstream of the TSS of CCNB2 (92.3% frequency), increased expression of which has been suggested to result in CIN in cancer [43].
Conclusions In conclusion, whole genome deep sequencing of a matched primary tumor and lymph node metastasis revealed largely overlapping alterations and that there were very few mutations unique to the involved node. Variants common to tumor and node include SNVs in TP53 and ARAP3, which mediate rearrangements to the cytoskeleton and cell shape, and an insertion in TOP2A, whose expression is significantly associated with tumor proliferation and can segregate breast cancers by outcome. However, significant conclusions regarding early dissemination needs analysis of a larger cohort of samples.
Sequence Data All sequence data is available at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) under accession number PRJEB7607 (ERP008528).
Supporting Information S1 Table. Variants in CIN25 genes: overlap between tumor and node. Many variants were found in the region upstream of the TSS and could therefore alter the respective gene expression of each. Variants are described using the following syntax: variant type, base change, genomic position, gene region, functional impact, frequency. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346.s001 (DOC)
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
8 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: JS RCC JAS. Performed the experiments: KB LK. Analyzed the data: KB. Contributed reagents/materials/ analysis tools: JHG CG JS RCC JAS. Wrote the paper: KB LK NP DSG KP JS JAS. Interpreted the results: DSG KP JAS.
References 1. Kiricuta IC, Willner J, Kolbl O, Bohndorf W (1994) The prognostic significance of the supraclavicular lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 28: 387. 2. Martinez-Ramos D, Escrig-Sos J, Alcalde-Sanchez M, Torrella-Ramos A, Salvador-Sanchis J ˆ N (2009) Disease-Free Survival and Prognostic Significance of Metastatic Lymph Node Ratio in T1-T2A Positive Breast Cancer Patients. A Population Registry-Based Study in a European Country. World Journal of Surgery 33: 1659–1664. 3. Querzoli P, Pedriali M, Rinaldi R, Lombardi AR, Biganzoli E, et al. (2006) Axillary Lymph Node Nanometastases Are Prognostic Factors for Disease-Free Survival and Metastatic Relapse in Breast Cancer Patients. Clinical Cancer Research 12: 6696–6701. 4. Jatoi I, Hilsenbeck SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK (1999) Significance of Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 17: 2334. 5. Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, et al. (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 10869–10874. 6. Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin S-F, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, et al. (2012) The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486: 346. 7. Baird R, Caldas C (2013) Genetic heterogeneity in breast cancer: the road to personalized medicine? BMC Medicine 11: 151. 8. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, et al. (2012) Intratumor Heterogeneity and Branched Evolution Revealed by Multiregion Sequencing. New England Journal of Medicine 366: 883–892. 9. Stephens PJ, McBride DJ, Lin M-L, Varela I, Pleasance ED, et al. (2009) Complex landscapes of somatic rearrangement in human breast cancer genomes. Nature 462: 1005. 10. Geyer FC, Weigelt B, Natrajan R, Lambros MBK, de Biase D, et al. (2010) Molecular analysis reveals a genetic basis for the phenotypic diversity of metaplastic breast carcinomas. The Journal of Pathology 220: 562. 11. Nowell PC (1976) The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science 194: 23. 12. Greaves M, Maley CC (2012) Clonal evolution in cancer. Nature 481: 306. 13. Rajagopalan H, Jallepalli PV, Rago C, Velculescu VE, Kinzler KW, et al. (2004) Inactivation of hCDC4 can cause chromosomal instability. Nature 428: 77. 14. Burrell RA, McGranahan N, Bartek J, Swanton C (2013) The causes and consequences of genetic heterogeneity in cancer evolution. Nature 501: 338. 15. Lee AJX, Endesfelder D, Rowan AJ, Walther A, Birkbak NJ, et al. (2011) Chromosomal Instability Confers Intrinsic Multidrug Resistance. Cancer Research 71: 1858–1870. 16. Heng H, Bremer S, Stevens J, Horne S, Liu G, et al. (2013) Chromosomal instability (CIN): what it is and why it is crucial to cancer evolution. Cancer Metastasis Rev 32: 325–340. 17. Drmanac R, Sparks AB, Callow MJ, Halpern AL, Burns NL, et al. (2010) Human Genome Sequencing Using Unchained Base Reads on Self-Assembling DNA Nanoarrays. Science 327: 78–81.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
9 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
18. Blanco L, Bernad A, La´zaro JM, Martı´n G, Garmendia C, et al. (1989) Highly efficient DNA synthesis by the phage phi 29 DNA polymerase. Symmetrical mode of DNA replication. Journal of Biological Chemistry 264: 8935–8940. 19. Carnevali P, Baccash J, Halpern A, Nazarenko I, Nilsen G, et al. (2012) Computational Techniques for Human Genome Resequencing Using Mated Gapped Reads. Journal of Computational Biology 19: 279. 20. Sherry ST, Ward MH, Kholodov M, Baker J, Phan L, et al. (2001) dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Research 29: 308–311. 21. Forbes SA, Bhamra G, Bamford S, Dawson E, Kok C, et al. (2001) The Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC). Current Protocols in Human Genetics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 22. Campbell N (2004) Genetic association database. Nature Reviews Genetics 5: 87. 23. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, et al. (2000) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nature genetics 25: 25. 24. Kwei KA, Kung Y, Salari K, Holcomb IN, Pollack JR (2010) Genomic instability in breast cancer: Pathogenesis and clinical implications. Molecular Oncology 4: 255–266. 25. Shaw J, Page K, Blighe K, Hava N, Guttery D, et al. (2011) Genomic analysis of circulating cell free DNA infers breast cancer dormancy. Genome Research. 26. McGranahan N, Burrell RA, Endesfelder D, Novelli MR, Swanton C (2012) Cancer chromosomal instability: therapeutic and diagnostic challenges. EMBO Rep 13: 528–538. 27. Denes V, Pilichowska M, Makarovskiy A, Carpinito G, Geck P (2010) Loss of a cohesin-linked suppressor APRIN (Pds5b) disrupts stem cell programs in embryonal carcinoma: an emerging cohesin role in tumor suppression. Oncogene 29: 3446. 28. Kim MS, An CH, Yoo NJ, Lee SH (2013) Frameshift mutations of chromosome cohesion-related genes SGOL1 and PDS5B in gastric and colorectal cancers with high microsatellite instability. Human pathology 44: 2234. 29. Vogelstein B, Lane D, Levine AJ (2000) Surfing the p53 network. Nature 408: 307. 30. Kamihara J, Rana HQ, Garber JE (2014) Germline TP53 Mutations and the Changing Landscape of Li– Fraumeni Syndrome. Human Mutation 35: 654. 31. Petitjean A, Achatz MIW, Borresen-Dale AL, Hainaut P, Olivier M (2007) TP53 mutations in human cancers: functional selection and impact on cancer prognosis and outcomes. Oncogene 26: 2157. 32. Yagi R, Tanaka M, Sasaki K, Kamata R, Nakanishi Y, et al. (2011) ARAP3 inhibits peritoneal dissemination of scirrhous gastric carcinoma cells by regulating cell adhesion and invasion. Oncogene 30: 1413. 33. Gardberg M, Kaipio K, Lehtinen L, Mikkonen P, Heuser VD, et al. (2013) FHOD1, a Formin Upregulated in Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition, Participates in Cancer Cell Migration and Invasion. PLoS ONE 8: e74923. 34. Carter SL, Eklund AC, Kohane IS, Harris LN, Szallasi Z (2006) A signature of chromosomal instability inferred from gene expression profiles predicts clinical outcome in multiple human cancers. Nat Genet 38: 1043–1048. 35. Gilbert SF (2000) Developmental Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland (MA). 36. Brown T (2002) Genomes. Oxford: Wiley-Liss. 37. Jechlinger W, Glocker J, Haidinger W, Matis A, Szostak MP, et al. (2005) Modulation of gene expression by promoter mutants of the l cI857/pRM/pR system. Journal of Biotechnology 116: 11. 38. Theuns J, Brouwers N, Engelborghs S, Sleegers K, Bogaerts V, et al. (2006) Promoter Mutations That Increase Amyloid Precursor-Protein Expression Are Associated with Alzheimer Disease. The American Journal of Human Genetics 78: 936–946. 39. Sza´sz A, Li Q, Eklund A, Sztupinszki Z, Rowan A, et al. (2013) The CIN4 chromosomal instability qPCR classifier defines tumor aneuploidy and stratifies outcome in grade 2 breast cancer. PLoS One 8: e56707. 40. Melhuish TA, Gallo CM, Wotton D (2001) TGIF2 Interacts with Histone Deacetylase 1 and Represses Transcription. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276: 32109–32114.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
10 / 11
Whole Genome Analysis Suggests Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer
41. Imoto I, Pimkhaokham A, Watanabe T, Saito-Ohara F, Soeda E, et al. (2000) Amplification and Overexpression of TGIF2, a Novel Homeobox Gene of the TALE Superclass, in Ovarian Cancer Cell Lines. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 276: 264–270. 42. Suzuki M, Yoshino I (2008) Identification of microRNAs caused by DNA methylation that induce metastasis. Future Oncology 4: 775–777. 43. Sarafan-Vasseur N, Lamy A, Bourguignon J, Le Pessot F, Hieter P, et al. (2002) Overexpression of B-type cyclins alters chromosomal segregation. Oncogene 21: 2051–2057.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115346 December 29, 2014
11 / 11
